news

Supreme Court Wisconsin Race

Published: 2025-04-02 02:05:27 5 min read

The 2023 Wisconsin Supreme Court race was not just a judicial election it was a high-stakes political battleground with far-reaching consequences for abortion rights, redistricting, and democracy itself.

With the court’s ideological balance hanging in the balance, the contest between liberal Janet Protasiewicz and conservative Daniel Kelly became the most expensive state judicial race in U.

S.

history, surpassing $45 million in spending.

This race exemplified the escalating politicization of state judiciaries, where partisan interests increasingly overshadow impartial justice.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court race exposed deep flaws in the electoral process for judges, including the corrosive influence of dark money, the erosion of judicial impartiality, and the troubling convergence of law and partisan politics.

While proponents argue judicial elections ensure accountability, critics contend they undermine judicial independence and public trust in the courts.

Wisconsin’s race was a case study in how undisclosed donations distort judicial impartiality.

Over $28 million in outside spending flooded the election, much of it from national interest groups.

The Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC) and Fair Courts America, a PAC funded by billionaire Richard Uihlein, poured millions into ads supporting Kelly.

Meanwhile, Protasiewicz benefited from heavy spending by progressive groups like the Democratic Party of Wisconsin and EMILY’s List.

Legal scholars, including Joanna Shepherd of Emory Law, warn that such spending creates the perception if not the reality of judges being beholden to donors.

A 2020 Brennan Center report found that 87% of Americans believe campaign cash influences judicial decisions, eroding confidence in the courts.

The race blurred the line between judge and politician.

Protasiewicz openly criticized Wisconsin’s GOP-drawn legislative maps as “rigged,” while Kelly, a former Republican legal advisor, framed the election as a referendum on “liberal activism.

” Such rhetoric contradicts the American Bar Association’s Model Code of Judicial Conduct, which mandates judges avoid “inappropriate political activity.

” Conservative defenders argue judicial elections prevent unelected elites from controlling the courts.

Yet, research by James Gibson of Washington University suggests that partisan judicial campaigns polarize public perceptions, with voters increasingly viewing courts as extensions of political parties.

The election’s outcome had immediate policy consequences.

Protasiewicz’s victory shifted the court’s majority to 4-3 liberal, leading to the overturning of Wisconsin’s 1849 abortion ban and a pending challenge to GOP gerrymandered maps.

Supporters hailed these decisions as victories for democracy; opponents decried them as judicial overreach.

Legal experts like Rick Hasen (UC Irvine) note that such high-profile cases incentivize partisan groups to treat judicial races as proxy wars.

The result? A judiciary pressured to rule based on electoral mandates rather than legal precedent.

Wisconsin state Supreme Court election breaks spending records - CBS News

Wisconsin’s race reflects a national crisis in judicial legitimacy.

States like Ohio and North Carolina have seen similar battles, raising questions about whether appointed or hybrid systems (like Missouri’s nonpartisan merit selection) might better preserve judicial independence.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court race was a microcosm of America’s judicial politicization crisis.

While judicial elections aim to democratize the bench, they risk replacing impartiality with partisanship and law with lobbying.

Without reforms such as stricter recusal rules or public financing the erosion of judicial integrity will only deepen, leaving the rule of law vulnerable to the highest bidder.

- Brennan Center for Justice.

(2020).

- Gibson, J.

(2018).

Washington University.

- Shepherd, J.

(2021).

Emory Law Journal.

- Hasen, R.

(2023).

UC Irvine Legal Studies.

(Word count: ~4800 characters).